104 Ohio App. 3d 812 - State v. Elliott’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 126 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably United States v. Burris (2019), 139 Ohio App. 3d 149 - State v. Cooper (2000)
2 federal appellate · 126 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Jenks · 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin · State v. Eskridge · State v. Kamel · State v. Sammons
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person acts knowingly, regardless of his purpose, when he is aware that his conduct will probably cause a certain result or will probably be of a certain nature. A person has knowledge of circumstances when he is aware that such circumstances probably exist.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Any mental illness or condition of such gravity as would normally require hospitalization or prolonged psychiatric treatment; {¶ 35} "(b) Any physical harm that carries a substantial risk of death; {¶ 36} "(c) Any physical harm that involves some permanent incapacity, whether partial or total, or that involves some temporary, substantial incapacity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the final analysis, we can envision few things more traumatic to a six-year-old child than to find his murdered mother’s body in a pool of blood, unless it be to see the actual murder, if the circumstances of this case do not allow the inference that defendant knew serious physical harm in the form of mental injury to Eddie was the probable result of defendant’s failure tp act, we have difficulty imagining what circumstances would. While these facts do not mandate a conclusion that defendant acted knowingly, the evidence was sufficient to allow the trial judge to consider the issue. Thus, the trial court did not err in overruling defendant’s [motion for acquittal].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.